ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Evolution In The Classroom

Should evolution be taught in the classroom?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---James on 11/12/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (12)

Post a New Blog

Ask the professor: "from what did the plethora of life forms in the Cambrian layer evolve?"
---jerry6593 on 6/2/09

Ask the professor if he could demonstrate the process of evolution, and to give you a list of intermediate forms. Until then, the default position is creationism. If he asks you for a demonstration of creation, tell him to ask his parents about it.
Psalms 14:1, 53:1, 74:18, 22, Proverbs 1:7, 22, Ecclesiastes 10:12-14, Romans 1:18-22.
---Glenn on 5/1/09

Answer, Elsewhere I debate AGAINST ATHEIST on the ontological shortcomings of atheism, clearly illustrating atheism to be a faith-based paradigm.

Simple ADP-ATP processes did not arise from nothing. I could compose 10 pages on this. Even atheist Dr Crick (of Watson and Crick)-not willing to consider unmistakable indicators of devised formation could not bring himself to see divinity- He could not acknowledged this simple point speculating 'aliens' seeded life on earth, somehow terra-forming it.
---MikeM on 12/13/07

1) MikeM you have the gall to whinge about creationists using ad hominem attack (which I havent seen) when this is exactly the tactic you used when attempting to discredit Dr Werner Gitt. You attempted to smear his reputation even denying he was a scientist!
Then the scientist Ktisophilus spelt out the rigid selection criteria by which Dr Gitt was judged suitable for the high position bestowed upon him at the PTB, a highly respected scientific organization!
---Warwick on 12/10/07

2) Describing you as a hypocrite isnt an attack, simply a dictionary description.
Those wishing to read the facts (as opposed MikeMs untruths) regarding Dr Gitt can do so on the site creationontheweb dot com. In the search bar just type in Werner Gitt.

BTW it appears MikeM has bailed on us as he hasnt even attempted an answer to my question on the appearance of genetic information. That question being: Where did information come from in the beginning?
---Warwick on 12/10/07

1.) God created man in His own image.
2.) God gave man dominion over all the earth, including the animals He had created.
3.) A man is a man.
4.) A monkey is a monkey.
5.) The THEORY of evolution is blasphemy.

Just a thought for those who believe we
evolved from monkeys---Why is the jungle still full of them??
---truthseeker on 12/10/07

I note three basic fallacious arguments anti-science bloggers use,

1. AD HOMINUM- Attack the person, not the idea or point, as in name calling. Thus the point still stands

2. Non sequitur , simply ignore, change the subject(bail) The point, idea still stands

3. Circular reasoning petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed the premises. Assumptions asside, the point or idea of the poster, still stands. This fallacy I see most often.
---MikeM on 12/9/07

MikleM I know how critical you are about those who you perceive to have 'bailed' on you so please don't bail on me.

In the evolutionary story once there was a time when there were no living organisms therefore no genetic information. This genetic information had to arise at the same time as the imagined rise of living organisms.

Question for you Mike -Where did informtion come from in the beginning? Dont bail Mike.
---Warwick on 12/8/07

I wonder how Matthew's and Mike M's scientific qualifications would stack up against Dr. Gitt's, Kitso's or Warwick's. Rather pitifully, I would guess.
---jerry6593 on 12/8/07


Evolution is taught as a theory, backed up by evidence, sometimes called fact.

Theories without any evidence are really quite useless things, such as the wind is caused by the wings of invisible flying pigs.
---matthew on 12/7/07

No, unless it is stressed as a THEORY with no foundation. Just a matter of the man Darwin and his thoughts. The problem is that it is taught as fact and that is wrong.
---jody on 12/6/07

Dr. Werner Gitt claims "information is always created by intelligent beings" is a law of nature, Life contains information, therefore life was created by an intelligent being.

Any proof, evidence of exactly how information can be generated by mutation and natural selection is brushed away by Werner Gitt because he has already said this is impossible - it's against the law of nature, so its irrelevant.
---MikeM on 12/6/07

Gitts line of reasoning, ontological parodoxy can easily be refuted.

His error, information with which a computer scientist has professional experience- created by humans. So he extrapolates from one sort of information (created by humans) to another sort (biological information, not created by humans)-this is not reational reasoning. By the same reasoning, he could prove that life was created by humans: just replace "intelligent beings" by "humans" using his own argument.
---MikeM on 12/6/07

Dr. Gitt, only his own experience counts. He derives laws of nature from what he personally did or did not experience, in his field of science. What biologists say about biology, is reflected in biology. I won't intrude on his area of science, as I know little of it. He is trying to intrude in biology- mine and others area of education he does not know-that doesn't bother him.

This is the behaviour and attitude of a typical pseudoscientist.
---MikeM on 12/6/07

Matthew you haven't even attempted to disprove what Ktisophilos has written about Proff. Gitt & his university selection process,but continue to denigrate him. Not impressive or in any way convincing. You come across as the true believer who will say anything, any baseless thing to discredit others.
---Warwick on 12/6/07

"take no notice of the ramblings of anti Christians such as MikeM who is tireless in his attack upon Christian faith"

In the final analysis that is an AD HOMINUM attack, nothing more. As one begins to lose an argument, they make personal attacks, name call, then bail.

Never have I been 'anti Christian'-my only issue is with fundamentalism, of any type.

I believe my analysis of Gitt's theories are credible, and my points of 11/29 stand.

I wear no blinders
---MikeM on 12/6/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans

Carl Sagan was was very well qualified in his field. That did not make him an expert in theology, as his dogmatic atheism was well known. His theological beliefs are no more/less credible than anyone else's. In the the same way Gitt is qualified in his field, his pretentions to theology are as valid as Sagans.

My point stands from 11/29 unless one can muster a rational argument against it.
---MikeM on 12/6/07

Warwick ... I think you should graciously accept that Matthew probably made a typo.
You admit you make typos ... why do you think the rest of us must be better typists than you are?
I am quite amused actually, for in England, Git is quite an naasty insult, and would be seen as a mockery of Mitt!!!
---alan_of_UK on 12/6/07


You are constantly inferring intention into other peoples beliefs. Atheists deny God because they hate him and by not believing then Hell doesn't exist or some nonsense like that. I misstype someone's name and my purpose is to belittle him, according to you.

Gitt's own words belittle him as a scientist, as do all the other real scientists who have taken the time to debunk his circular argument "theorems".
---matthew on 12/5/07

Alan I am the first to admit I make typo's but is this the point? Or is that (most likely) Matthew purposefully misspelled Prof.Gitt's name in some attempt to belittle him?

I think we can now see ( from what Ktisophilos wrote)that Werner is indeed a scientist, and a good one despite the pathetic slanders of MikeM & co. Cheap shots.
---Warwick on 12/5/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance

K ... ereally?
I quote: "If by chance you have carelessly misspelled prof. Gitt's name then you don't have a clue"
Seems like criticising a typo.
---alan_of_UK on 12/5/07

Alan, Warwick was not criticising a typo but a mockery of a name.
---Ktisophilos on 12/4/07

Matthew, the pedantW made the typo I referred to.
The abbreviation for Professor is Prof, not Proff.
The thing is not to criticise others spelling or grammar, lest we be caught ourselves, as W was
---alan_of_UK on 12/3/07

Some do,some don't. Some can, and some can't.
Some will and some won't.
---Jack_fossett on 12/3/07

Send a Free Winter Ecard

I am a Ph.D. scientist, and I can confirm that Dr Gitt is a real scientist as well, despite the slanders by MikeMocker and Matthew. He was Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.
---Ktisophilos on 12/3/07

Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title Director and Professor at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be:

1. A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title.

2. One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.

3. Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed.
---Ktisophilos on 12/3/07

What sort of person like MikeMocker comes to a Christian blog to mock the Bible, and cite a rabid antitheist like Schneider, in his fact-free attack on Prof. Gitt?

Go to True Origins for a critique of Scheider's atheistic apologetics by Dr Royal Truman.
---Ktisophilos on 12/3/07

Plants growing to the light is not vision at all. Matthew is as ignorant of science as he is rebellious against God's Word.

Phototropism, as it is called, is a designed response as Warwick said. Light is absorbed by a protein called phototropin. This somehow causes the plant growth hormone auxin to migrate away from the lighted side towards the shaded side of the stem. Thus the shaded side grows more quickly and the stem bends towards the light.
---Ktisophilos on 12/3/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays

The biochemistry of even a simple light-detecting cell has amazing complexity. The light causes a shape change in retinal (geometrical isomerism), which changes the shape of the protein it is bound to, rhodopsin. This causes it to bind to transducin, and in turn the transducin releases GDP and takes up GTP. This complex can cut another molecule called GTP. This sharply lowers its concentration ...
---Ktisophilos on 12/3/07

1)To make typos is no crime, I make my share. However to purposefully make false statements about others behind the safety of fake names is cowardly.

There was an anti-Christian book written in Australia years ago -'Telling Lies For God'- & to the uninformed it made a good case. Careful analysis showed it to be half-truth & outright deceit. Read about it on the site creationontheweb.

Anyone can fairly criticize a scientists work, this is the nature of science.
---Warwick on 12/2/07

2) However many on philosophical grounds attack the integrity of Bible believing Christians & the work of scientists who are Christian. Knowing Proff. Gitt & his scientific standing I take no notice of the ramblings of anti Christians such as MikeM who is tireless in his attack upon Christian faith. Dont be fooled by wolves in the fold.

It it rude to call him this? Just look at how Jesus & the apostles dealt with those similar mockers in Scriptural times.
---Warwick on 12/2/07


In this case the typo was mine. Which I made again in my response. The man's name is Gitt, but my comments about "Mitt" are fully attributable to him.
---matthew on 11/30/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance

Matthew ... You would not expect a pedant like Warwick to make typos, but he has, and this is one such, in his previous entry: .. "Proff. Werner Gitt"
I'm sure Warwick realises that he makes typos, but it is a pity that he is so prone to jump on those that others make.
---alan_of_UK on 11/30/07


No I am a person person of integrity, but I do sometimes mistype or misspell, or mess up with my grammar. For you to attack me personally based on this is childish. But I will return the favor, so watch what you type.

MikeM has responded well to Mitt's semantic pretenstions of science.

By the way Mitt's whole argument is based on work done in 1948, ancient times by information standards.
---matthew on 11/30/07

Matthew who is this Mitt you denegrate. I have not heard of him.

If by chance you have carelessly misspelled prof. Gitt's name then you don't have a clue. He is indeed a scientist & one with an international reputation. I have visited him at the university in Braunschweig where he was involved in research. To try and dismiss such a qualified man just shows that you are not a person of integrity.
---Warwick on 11/30/07

W. Gitt's arguements have been soundly refuted by the scientific community ( I can quoate a dozen sources) Gitt has incorrectly cited research that used "algorithmic randomness and not statistical randomness", which has led to false conclusions, meaning his idiosyncratic creationist ideas. Its convoluted dogma, nothing more.
---MikeM on 11/29/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating

W. Gitt describes his principles as "empirical." W. Gitt proposes fourteen 'theorems,' yet fails to demonstrate them, thus theory. Tom Schneider of the Molecular Information Theory Group at the National Institutes of Health, an expert on application of evolution to biology points out Gitt's unproved "theorems" as all circular reasoning and self-contradictioy. W. Gitt falls into a "standard misunderstanding that information is not entropy, information is not uncertainty."
---MikeM on 11/29/07

Warwick, One of Mitt's books begins:
"The atheistic formula for evolution is:
Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors
(chance and necessity + mutation + selection
+ isolation + death) + very long time periods."
This is not math, or science but, semantic word play. It proves nothing, nor does his unproveable "empirical principle" such as "No information chain can exist without a mental origin."

He is not a scientist. Talk about science wannabes.
---matthew on 11/29/07

Jerry our time in France was both interesting & rewarding. A beautiful country with very friendly & helpful people.

I was a speaker at two Christian conferences along with Proff. Werner Gitt who spoke about information (as in genetic information) demonstrating that evolutionists have no answer as to how such information could occur by evolutionary processes.

It is obvious that those who promote microbe to man evolution do so because of idealogy not scientific fact.
---Warwick on 11/29/07


I have asked you in the blogs to explain some basic science concepts, since you profess to be such reputable scientist yourself and are so willing to identify me and others as ignorant science wannabes.

Tell us, I ask again, to explain the science concept of theory. Not evolutionary theory. Just the concept of theory. Pretend were just ignorant six graders.
---matthew on 11/29/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments

You seem to have always a demeaning and condescending attitude toward anyone who uses science to explain a view other than what you believe,---using your expertise as a scientist to put down their limited and ignorant science understanding? But you views of professors and the educational establishment show you must have had a really hard time in college, or did you even go? Or did you get a PHd from you homeschool?
---matthew on 11/29/07

Warwick: Glad you're back! How was France?
---jerry6593 on 11/28/07

The reason many Darwinists reject Creation is because they fear anything different than their own pre-conceived world-view. Their view MUST be their college professor's view. This has always been the case with people whose faith is weak enough that it can be threatened by outside evidence or beliefs. The Acedemic Establishment persecutes those who dare to suggest that the universe and life did not create itself from nothing, or that the fossil evidence supports a universal flood rather than gradualism.
---jerry6593 on 11/28/07

Stephen says scientific evidence backs evolution when creationists & evolutionists have the same evidence which doesn't speak but is interpreted via belief!

The Grand Canyon- formed over eons by the Colorado River or formed by the world destroying flood of Noah?

We weren't there therefore aren't eyewitnesses so interpret it via our beliefs. I believe it better fits a flood model than an evolutionary long-ages view but admit this is my interpretation of the available facts.
---Warwick on 11/27/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


While gorillas do not forge steel, neither do most humans (how many people do you know that know how to do so, let alone have ever done it)?

But that aside, some birds use tools (drop rocks on nuts to crack them), and chimps make tools (stripping and sharpening sticks to dig into anthills).

I also saw a story a couple of years ago when a psychologist observed a chimp lying in order to hoard food (looks like Satan has been busy).
---StrongAxe on 11/27/07

All THEORIES with both pro's and con's should be presented. This way the teacher shouldn't be considered biased, as ALL data has been presented.
---Sam_Lawson on 11/26/07

I believe it should only be taught only as theory and nothing more.
---Cameron on 11/26/07

In God's own schools? In one word NO!.
---catherine on 11/26/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts

Atheism is a belief system, it's not without it's beliefs.
I believe in an Intelligent First.
To the atheist that believes in evolution, prove your negative.
To the Christian that believes in evolution, prove your negative.

How many gorillas have ever forged a piece of steel, repaired your carburetor or performed brain surgery?
---Bob on 11/26/07

The the theory of evolution is false as proven by science. Search for the DVD "HAS SCIENCE DISCOVERED GOD?". This is a good Christmas gift for the people who you know who are atheists.

Summary: Prof. Antony Flew, the best-known atheist of the last 50 years, recently made the announcement that the discoveries of modern science have led him to accept the existence of God.
---Francis on 11/26/07

Nedra: Evolution is a theory that has substantial scientific evidence to back it. It is accepted by a large majority of all scientists that study and/or teach in the fields that are related to it. Some may believe in "inteligent design", but still believe that evolution is the means that God used to bring about creation. You may harm the kids you are responsible to teach, if you do not give them the education they need. Remember the history of Galileo and the Catholic Church.
---Stephen on 11/26/07


The reason many Christians reject evolution is because they fear anything different than their own pre-conceived world-view. Their view MUST be God's view. This has always been the case with people whose faith is weak enough that it can be threatened by outside evidence or beliefs. (The Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for daring to suggest the earth is not in the center of the universe, or Tyndale for daring to publish a bible not under thier own control, or Puritans burned witches).
---StrongAxe on 11/26/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment

Matt: No! I do not admit that the earth is older than 6000 years. I have given you scientific evidence (Polonium halos) for fiat creation. When I give you scientific evidence from the fossil record that your "partial eye" hypothesis is hogwash, you want to "skip it." If the Bible and Darwinism agree, how did your solar-tracking plants of day 3 survive until the sun "evolved" in day 4? As for the sand comment, you built the sand pile, I merely pushed it over on you.
---jerry6593 on 11/26/07

Matthew have you ever considered that plants grow towards the light because they were designed to do that to survive?

In an evolutionary scenario what would have happened to plants which didn't grow towards the light? Likewise why do roots grow downwards rather than upwards? Because they need to do that to survive. All solid evidence of a providential designer God.

It all happened by chance? I'd like to see that!
---Warwick on 11/26/07


Can't resist throwing sand, can you?

So let's skip the fossil record. Have you ever noticed that plants grow toward the light? Is that not evidence of not only the most primitive vision, response to a light source, but the beginnings of a nervous system response?

And if you're going to play the scientist, then show me the evidence that evolution is an invention of Satan.

And I guess you are at least admiting th earth is older than 6000 years?
---matthew on 11/24/07

Matt: Please note that your discussion of partial eye development is, like all of evolution, pure conjecture without a hint of real science in it. The fossil evidence belies your outlandish assertion in that the trilobites of the lowest (Cambrian) level of the fossil record show ONLY highly complex eyes - no precursors with partial eyes are found at all. Maybe such tripe plays well at the campus coffee shop, but in adult circles, it only engenders laughs.

P.S. Satan, not God, invented evolution!
---jerry6593 on 11/23/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans

The eye has to function to be of any use, obviously. Therefore a creature needs not only the eye but a transmission system to the brain & a 'program' in the brain to interpret the information.

Therefore part of an eye doesn't work & doesn't therefore have any survival advantage so would not be retained, in the imagined evolutionary process.
---Warwick on 11/22/07


Thank you again. I always feel sad when my religious beliefs are challenged simply because I try to use reason to understand some things I do not, and because I refuse to discard the scientific method altogether.

Of course for some things faith is the only answer.
---matthew on 11/21/07

Ritah, That was actually my point. One eight of an eye does have a purpose. So would 1000/th of an eye. A creature in the distance past might have just a few light sensing cells to guide it to light, warmth, survival and therefore the ability to reproduce. It's progeny might have more cells, helping them to recognize shadows of predators and survive. Enhancements might help the animal FIND food. Small changes for the better lead to more complex eyes God's invention, "evolution" is wonderful.
---matthew on 11/21/07

"So I ask you: what good it 1/8th of an eye?" Well, to a creature that needs 8 times better vision than a human 1/8th would make it difficult to find its prey. For the human being who needs only 1/8th the vision of an eagle then I would call that JUST PERFECT.
---RitaH on 11/21/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


On the Nova documentary last week, they took a moustrap, and removed 6 of the parts so only the plate and spring were left. This was useless as a moustrap, but made a very good tie-clip.

Natural selection would "prefer" certain combinations of parts, if they have ANY useful function. Those functions might change over time.

(There is a certain chain of skull bones that are part of the jaw in reptiles, who need to chew - but part of the ear for mammals, who need to hear.)
---StrongAxe on 11/21/07

People will always believe what they want.

Biblical literalists who cannot accept metaphorical passages condemn all science as being anti-religion.

People with an atheist agenda condemn religion as being un-scientific.

Both groups say "My beliefs are right, and I will only hear things that confirm my beliefs". This is not science. It is dogma.

Science says NOTHING about religion. It asks questions, and sees what the evidence says, without pre-judging the outcome.
---StrongAxe on 11/21/07

The fact is that God and evolution are not in conflict.
Christians beleive God is Creator, and accept Jesus as their Saviour, and most of them accept that something like evolution probably occurred.
Of course the proof of Darwinian Evolution is neither more nor less than that of a 6000 year old planet, but the latter is most unlikely
---alan_of_UK on 11/20/07

As a teacher in a Christian school,I believe evolution should not be taught in schools. I believe in creationism.
---Nedra on 11/20/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


You're telling me that evolution is a hoax perpetuated for the purpose of allowing people going about living their lives in orgiastic hedonism and believing in God or Hell would prevent that. The fact is that most people in the world are not Christains, many are atheists, but do not believe in murder, lieing, infidelity,and believe they should do unto others and they would have others do unto them. Your fears have not been realized.
---matthew on 11/20/07

Matthew, what fundamentalist offer is that the earth was created 'ex nihilio'-created as is, in the same way God created Adam as a grown man.

I would ask Catherine the same question I have asked for years of fundamentalist, "does science not exist?" Scientist offer objective evidence, they offer only emotion, example, 'dream on+ .' I have seen them run out of a musium where early man fossils were displayed-is that faith?

I've yet to find how science disagrees with scripture.
---MikeM on 11/20/07

Catherine, Is mitochondrial DNA, palentology, chemistry, archeology, biology, micro-biology, all a hoax? Do these sciences not even exist? Where are these atheist conspiritorial scientist? I know only a few atheists, like Gould and Dawkins most evolutionary scientist I know are very religious. Please enlighten me as I am ignorant of who they are.
---MikeM on 11/20/07

I will tell you the motivation. People very simply want to think that they can get away with whatever they do in this life and not be held accountable in another life. No Creator no Judgment Day. Dream on.+
---catherine on 11/20/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


So exactly what exactly is the motivation for people to create this hoax about evolution?

And why, why, why did God leave evidence around that the earth is much older than 6000 years? Was this some kind of weird test to separate the right thinkers destined for Heaven, as opposed to most of the rest of the world destined to Hell.
---matthew on 11/20/07


Wow: "Evolution is nutz". Great technical insight.

As far as the evolution of vision, I suggest you do some reading to give you insight on how evolution theory supports the idea. I will not try in 85 words.

But I asked the question,Hawks and eagles can see up to eight times farther away than us. So I ask you: what good it 1/8th of an eye?

---matthew on 11/20/07

Jarry, "It's (evolutions) total lack of scientific verification should be fully exposed." It remains a rhetorical statement unless one can back it up. I, and others, offer evidence and objective facts again and again. I have not seen one rational counter-indication of evolution offered, not one. (Anomolies do not count)

As to religion/politics, I am Libertarian, a strict constitutionalist and believe the Bible is inspired, far from Marxist or atheist. Its a fallacious analogy.
---MikeM on 11/20/07

Evolution is nutz! A mouse-trap has 8 parts. Without any one of them it is useless. The human eye has thousands of parts. Without any one of them it, too, is useless. Only a nut could believe that the eye evolved over millions of years useless, until that last little part came into existance. How better to believe that such a perfect design has a Perfect Designer!
---Joe on 11/20/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief

Matthew, your name is deceiving. If I am understanding you right>>>God is our Creator. Teaching evolution is a lie. We study for years the word Of God. We know without a doubt the whole word of God is nothing but the truth. The living God. Evolution is trumpted up by humans. God's creative beings. And evolution is the biggest hoax and lie that's ever been told by humans. If you and your children choose to believe a lie be my guest. I choose heaven, and God. I choose to study the word of God. Good day.
---catherine on 11/20/07


Clearly, you worldview is completely corrupted by the beliefs you hold on to. You will discard anything that does not fit, redefine words and ideas to suit you needs to prove your beliefs, and now apparently rewrite history to amplify the meaning of you peculiar beliefs.

Do you really expect reasoning people to fall in line behind your strange worldview?
---matthew on 11/20/07

Catherine, The Bible is a complilation of books and stories written in different languages almost 2000 years ago. Translation/copying errors aside we must also deal with meaning change in words, idioms, and phrases over time. Finally, we must deal with personel, doctorinal slants, and political motivations that corrupt one's personel interpretation of those words. All these things contribute to what one believes the Bible says. How can scientific inquiry be trumped by such unreliable belief?
---matthew on 11/20/07

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.